Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper 39
` Entered: May 21, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`IEE SENSING, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
`JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper 39
` Entered: May 21, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`IEE SENSING, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
`JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,500,194
`B2 are unpatentable. Also, based on the entirety of the record, we deny
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend.
`A. Procedural History
`IEE Sensing, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`requesting institution of an inter partes review of claims 1–8 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,500,194 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’194 patent”). Delphi
`Technologies, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6).
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted an inter partes review. Paper 7
`(“Dec. to Inst.”). In particular, we determined that Petitioner demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all challenged claims of the ’194
`patent on all presented grounds. Id. at 2, 10, 19, 21.
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 14, “PO
`Resp.”), to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 17, “Pet. Reply”). The
`parties agreed to the filing of a sur-reply by Patent Owner, and we
`subsequently authorized such filing. Paper 18. Patent Owner then filed a
`Sur-Reply (Paper 26, “PO Sur-Reply”).
`Patent Owner also filed a Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 13),
`and Petitioner filed an Opposition to Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to
`Amend (Paper 16), to which Patent Owner filed a Reply to the Opposition
`(Paper 21). The parties also agreed to the filing of a sur-reply by Petitioner,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`which we subsequently authorized (Paper 23), and Petitioner thereafter filed
`a Sur-Reply (Paper 27) to Patent Owner’s Reply to the Opposition.
`An oral hearing in this proceeding was held on February 12, 2019; a
`transcript of the hearing is included in the record (Paper 35, “Tr.”).
`B. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that there are no related judicial or administrative
`proceedings. Pet. iii; Paper 5, 2.
`C. Evidence Relied Upon
`Petitioner identifies the following references as prior art in its asserted
`grounds of unpatentability:
`
`(1) U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0186282
`A1, published August 7, 2008 (Ex. 1006, “Nix”); and
`
`(2) U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0295199
`A1, published December 3, 2009 (Ex. 1007, “Kincaid”).
`Petitioner proffered a “Declaration of Thomas G. Matheson, Ph.D. in
`Support of Petitioner’s Request for Inter Partes Review” (Ex. 1003;
`Ex. 1014 (Errata for Ex. 1003)) and a “Declaration of Dr. Thomas G.
`Matheson, Ph.D. in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s
`Response and Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion
`to Amend” (Ex. 1010).
`Patent Owner proffered a “Declaration of Scott Andrews in Support of
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response” (Ex. 2002), a “Declaration of Scott
`Andrews in Support of Patent Owner’s Response” (Ex. 2009), and a
`“Declaration of Scott Andrews in Support of Patent Owner’s Reply in
`Support of its Contingent Motion to Amend” (Ex. 2017). Deposition
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`transcripts for Mr. Andrews (Ex. 1011) and Dr. Matheson (Exs. 2010, 2018)
`were filed. See also Ex. 1012 (Errata for Ex. 2010).
`D. Grounds of Unpatentability at Issue
`We instituted inter partes review on grounds that, under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103, claims 1–8 are unpatentable over (1) Kincaid in view of Nix and
`(2) Nix alone. Dec. to Inst. 2, 21.
`E. The ’194 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’194 patent issued August 6, 2013, from an application filed
`October 20, 2010, and claims priority to a provisional application filed
`November 20, 2009. Ex. 1001, [22], [45], [60], 1:8–11; see also Pet. 2
`(indicating that the ’194 patent was accorded a filing date of November 20,
`2009); PO Resp. 3 (indicating that the ’194 patent claims priority to a
`provisional application filed on November 20, 2009).
`The ’194 patent relates to “seat assemblies using seat heating elements
`for both seat heating and occupant detection wherein the occupant detection
`circuit is electrically isolated from the seat heating circuit during occupant
`sensing.” Ex. 1001, 1:17–21. According to the ’194 patent, “[o]ccupant
`detection systems using a heating element for both seat heating and occupant
`detection are known.” Id. at 1:25–26. Figure 3 of the ’194 patent is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is a “block diagram of an occupant detection/seat heating
`system.” Id. at 2:66–67. In one embodiment, a seat assembly has a seat
`cushion providing a seat surface, and heating element 14 is adjacent the
`seating surface. Id. at 3:6–12. Heating circuit 38 applies heating current to
`heating element 14 when switches 44, 54 are closed. Id. at 3:51–55.
`Occupant detection circuit 28 detects an object or occupant by measuring the
`field impedance of heating element 14. Id. at 3:62–64. Isolation circuit 68
`is interposed between heating circuit 38 and heating element 14. Id. at
`3:38–39.
`Isolation circuit 68 is configured to prevent heating circuit 38 from
`influencing occupant detection circuit 28. Id. at 4:29–31. As used in the
`’194 patent,
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`influencing the occupant detection circuit 28 means that the
`electrical load or impedance of the heating circuit 38 does not
`combine with the electric impedance of the heating element 14
`in a way that would influence the detection of an occupant by the
`occupant detection circuit 28 by, for example, changing the
`apparent electric impedance of the heating element 14 measured
`by the occupant detection circuit 28.
`Id. at 4:31–36. In isolation circuit 68, “[s]teady current flows through a first
`inductor L1 and a second inductor L2, where L1 and L2 are inductively
`coupled . . . forming a common mode choke T1.” Id. at 3:55–58.
`F. Illustrative Claim
`The ’194 patent has 8 claims, all of which Petitioner challenges.
`Claims 1, 4, and 8 are independent, and claim 1 is reproduced below.
`1. An occupant detection system, comprising:
`a seat assembly comprising a seat cushion having a seating
`surface;
`a heating element adjacent the seating surface, said heating
`element formed of electrically conductive material;
`a heating circuit electrically coupled to the heating
`element, said heating circuit configured to supply an electrical
`current to the heating element effective to generate heat by the
`heating element;
`an occupant detection circuit electrically coupled to the
`heating element, said occupant detection circuit configured to
`detect an occupant presence near the heating element; and
`an isolation circuit interposed between the heating circuit
`and the heating element, said isolation circuit configured to
`prevent the heating circuit from influencing the occupant
`detection circuit, said isolation circuit comprising a common
`mode choke, wherein the common mode choke comprises a first
`inductor inductively coupled to a second inductor such that
`current in the first in1 inductor induces current in the second
`
`1 Both parties agree that the “in” in “first in inductor” is a clear
`typographical error. Paper 13, Claims Appendix ii; Tr. 6:16–23.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`inductor, wherein the common mode choke is characterized as a
`four terminal device.
`Ex. 1001, 7:2–24.
`
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`II.
`In an inter partes review based on a petition filed before November
`13, 2018, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted according to
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018); Cuozzo Speed
`Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of
`the broadest reasonable interpretation standard).2
`In the Decision to Institute, we determined that no express
`interpretation was required for any claim term at that stage of the
`proceeding. Dec. to Inst. 6.
`A. Petitioner’s Proposed Interpretations
`Petitioner proposes interpretations for “common mode choke,”
`“occupant detection,” and “excitation signal.” Pet. 5–8. Patent Owner
`disputes Petitioner’s proposed interpretations because (1) “common mode
`choke” is limited improperly to common mode chokes with four-terminal
`inductors and (2) “occupant detection” does not appear in the claims and the
`proposed interpretation is divorced improperly from the proper context of
`the claims. PO Resp. 25–28. Patent Owner also indicates that express
`
`
`2 A recent amendment to this rule does not apply here because the Petition
`was filed before November 13, 2018. See Changes to the Claim
`Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018)
`(amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`interpretation of “common mode choke” is unnecessary and express
`interpretation of “excitation signal” is not necessary to resolve the parties’
`dispute. See id. at 25, 28. Petitioner states that, because the Decision to
`Institute did not need to construe these terms, it “declines to reargue these
`proposed constructions.” Pet. Reply 4 n.2 (citing Pet. 5–8; Dec. to Inst. 6);
`see also Tr. 7:13–22 (Petitioner’s counsel agreeing that express
`interpretations of these terms are not necessary for resolving the parties’
`disputes).
`We agree with the parties that “common mode choke,” “occupant
`detection,” and “excitation signal” do not require express interpretation to
`resolve the parties’ disputes. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing explicitly only those claim
`terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor
`Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the
`context of an inter partes review).
`B. “occupant” and “occupant presence” (claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8)
`Patent Owner proposes interpreting “occupant” to mean “a person
`present in the seat assembly” and interpreting “occupant presence” to mean
`“the fact of a person being present in the seat assembly” with support from
`the specification and declarant testimony. PO Resp. 9–11 (citing Ex. 1001,
`1:15–16, 1:29, 1:35–39, 2:6–9, 3:29–32, 3:65–4:1, 4:14–21, 5:34–61, Fig. 1;
`Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 55–58; Ex. 2012, 1213, 1381). Patent Owner contends that
`interpretation is necessary to clarify the scope of the claims to “require[] the
`occupant detection circuit to be a circuit specifically designed to detect the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`fact of a person being present in the seat, near the heating element.” Id. at
`11–12.
`Petitioner replies that Patent Owner’s interpretations for “occupant”
`and “occupant presence” are unnecessary because the claims already require,
`for example, an “occupant detection circuit configured to detect an occupant
`presence near the heating element.” Pet. Reply 6.
`We agree with Petitioner that interpreting “occupant” and “occupant
`presence” to include a requirement that the person be “near the heating
`element” is unnecessary because independent claims 1, 4, and 8 already
`recite that requirement. Ex. 1001, 7:13–14, 7:41–42, 8:33. Also, we agree
`with Patent Owner that, if interpretation were necessary, the terms
`“occupant” and “occupant presence” would include a person being present
`in the seat. To resolve the parties’ dispute, however, we do not need to
`determine if the terms are limited to only a person being in the seat. Vivid
`Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.
`C. “occupant detection circuit configured to detect an occupant
`presence near the heating element” (claims 1 and 4)
`Patent Owner proposes interpreting “occupant detection circuit
`configured to detect an occupant presence near the heating element” to mean
`“occupant detection circuit specifically designed to detect an occupant
`presence near the heating element” so that the occupant detection circuit is
`“specifically designed to detect the fact of a person being present in the seat,
`near the heating element.” PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner argues its proposed
`interpretation would not include a circuit that “is designed such that it is
`merely capable of detecting a person at some incidental point in time (e.g., it
`cannot detect that person unless they take some further action, such as
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`operating a vehicle control, as in Nix).” Id. (emphasis in original). Patent
`Owner contends that the specification, declarant testimony, and case law
`support its proposed interpretation. Id. at 13–18 (citing Ex. 1001, Abstract,
`1:42–44, 3:28–32, 3:62–4:1, 4:22–26, 5:34–61; Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 62–63). Patent
`Owner also contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would understand
`that the interpretation of ‘configured to’ as meaning ‘designed to’ rather than
`merely ‘capable of’ is correct in light of the specification.” Id. at 18–19
`(citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 64–65; Ex. 2010, 24:7–15, 28:25–29:17, 103:3–105:25).
`Patent Owner argues that interpretation “is necessary to clarify that mere
`capability at some incidental point in time is insufficient.” Id. at 12
`(emphasis in original).
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s implicit interpretation of
`the phrase as a circuit that is capable of detecting an occupant presence is
`unreasonably broad because it is “divorced from the context of the
`specification and is not consistent with the commonly understood meaning
`of ‘configured to’ or its usage when read in light of the ’194 Patent
`specification.” Id. at 13; see also id. at 12 (citing Pet. 22–24; Dec. to Inst.
`10; Ex. 1003 ¶ 65), 17–18 (citing case law), 19 (citing Ex. 2010,
`103:3–105:25).
`Petitioner replies that the proposed interpretation is irrelevant because
`(1) it does not include the temporal limitations on which Patent Owner relies
`for distinguishing from Nix, (2) the temporal limitations do not follow from
`the proposed interpretation, (3) the claims do not recite how or when the
`occupant detection circuit operates, and (4) the claims do not require any
`specific occupant detection circuit. Pet. Reply 5–7 (citing PO Resp. 13, 19;
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:25–26; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 9, 11; Ex. 1011, 19:17–20, 20:5–7,
`42:6–12).
`Based on our review of the record before us, we interpret “occupant
`detection circuit configured to detect an occupant presence near the heating
`element” to mean “occupant detection circuit specifically designed to detect
`an occupant presence near the heating element.” Ex. 1001, Abstract,
`1:25–26, 1:42–44, 3:28–32, 3:62–4:1, 4:22–26, 5:34–61; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 9, 11;
`Ex. 1011, 19:17–20, 20:5–7, 42:6–12; Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 62–66; Ex. 2010, 24:7–
`15, 28:25–29:17, 103:3–105:25).
`D. “occupant sensing circuit . . . effective for sensing the presence of
`an occupant near the heating element” (claim 8)
`Patent Owner also proposes interpreting “occupant sensing circuit . . .
`effective for sensing the presence of an occupant near the heating element”
`in the same manner as “occupant detection circuit configured to detect an
`occupant presence near the heating element” because Petitioner’s arguments
`treat the limitations similarly. PO Resp. 20 (citing Pet. 49–52, 80–83;
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93, 128; Ex. 2009 ¶ 67). Patent Owner, thus, proposes
`interpreting the phrase as an “occupant sensing circuit . . . specifically
`designed to sense the fact of a person being present in the seat, near the
`heating element.” Id. Petitioner replies that “the fact that the same prior art
`disclosure meets claim language from claim 1 and claim 8 does not make
`those claims the same.” Pet. Reply 8.
`We agree with Petitioner that the mere fact that arguments for the
`“occupant detection circuit” of claims 1 and 4 are also asserted for the
`“occupant sensing circuit” of claim 8 does not lead necessarily to the
`determination that the same interpretation should be applied. The drafter
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`must have chosen different wording to obtain some different scope. We do
`not, however, need to determine the exact differences in scope between
`claims 1, 4, and 8 to resolve the parties’ dispute. Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at
`803. Instead, we need only interpret the phrase to encompass, at least,
`Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation for “occupant detection circuit”
`because the parties’ arguments indicate that the scope of the phrases have
`some overlap and those arguments do not rely on “occupant sensing circuit”
`having a different scope than “occupant detection circuit.” See Pet. 49–52,
`80–83; PO Resp. 20.
`E. “isolation circuit configured to prevent the heating circuit from
`influencing the occupant detection circuit” (claims 1, 2, 4, 6)
`Patent Owner contends that “influencing the occupant detection
`circuit” is defined by the ’194 patent. PO Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1001,
`4:29–38). The ’194 patent states that:
`As used herein, influencing the occupant detection circuit 28
`means that the electrical load or impedance of the heating circuit
`38 does not combine with the electric impedance of the heating
`element 14 in a way that would influence the detection of an
`occupant by the occupant detection circuit 28 by, for example,
`changing the apparent electric impedance of the heating element
`14 measured by the occupant detection circuit 28.
`Ex. 1001, 4:29–38 (emphasis added).
`Patent Owner argues that the presence of “for example” in its asserted
`definition does not include influences on detection other than “changing the
`apparent electric impedance of the heating element 14 measured by the
`occupant detection circuit 28,” as indicated by the specification and the
`record. PO Resp. 21–22 (citing Dec. on Inst. 12). Patent Owner contends
`that the record indicates that the “only embodiment for detecting occupant
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`presence in the ’194 Patent is through the measurement of changes to the
`apparent electric impedance of the heating element.” Id. at 22–23 (citing
`Dec. on Inst. 3; Ex. 1001, 3:62–4:26, 4:29–50, 5:41–61, 6:35–59; Ex. 2009
`¶¶ 68–70; Ex. 2010, 61:18–62:3). Patent Owner, therefore, “proposes to
`remove the qualifier ‘for example’” so as “to remove any perceived
`ambiguity” and “read the definition’s intent properly in the context of the
`specification.” Id. at 23–24 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 68–71).
`Petitioner replies that Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation is not
`supported by the express language of the claims, is not supported by the
`intrinsic record, was rejected in the Decision to Institute, and attempts to
`import a limitation into the claims. Pet. Reply 11–14 (citing Dec. to Inst. 6,
`11–12; PO Resp. 23–24; Ex. 1001, 1:25–26, 4:30–38, 7:16–189, 7:44–8:2;
`Ex. 1011, 42:6–12).
`Claims 1 and 4 only require an “isolation circuit configured to prevent
`the heating circuit from influencing the occupant detection circuit.”
`Ex. 1001, 7:15–18, 7:43–8:2. The claims do not recite explicitly any
`specific form of influence on the occupant detection circuit. See id.; see also
`Ex. 1011, 42:6–12 (Patent Owner’s declarant testifying similarly).
`Also, we agree with Petitioner that the claims and specification of the
`’194 patent are broader than Patent Owner’s arguments. The asserted
`definition is bracketed by the statements “[f]urther features and advantages
`of the invention will appear more clearly on a reading of the following
`detailed description of the preferred embodiment of the invention, which is
`given by way of non-limiting example only . . . ” and “[w]hile this invention
`has been described in terms of the preferred embodiments thereof, it is not
`intended to be so limited . . . .” Ex. 1001, 2:54–58, 6:62–65 (emphases
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`added). These statements taken together with the qualifier “for example” in
`the asserted definition indicate that the embodiment for detecting occupant
`presence through the measurement of changes to the apparent electric
`impedance of the heating element is not the only embodiment within the
`scope of the ’194 patent. Moreover, the record does not show a clear
`disavowal of claim scope in the specification or prosecution history. Thus,
`we determine that the ’194 patent does not provide a special definition for
`“influencing the occupant detection circuit” in the manner asserted by Patent
`Owner. We interpret the phrase to mean “electrical load or impedance of the
`heating circuit does not combine with the electric impedance of the heating
`element in a way that would influence the detection of an occupant by the
`occupant detection circuit” and includes, at least, “changing the apparent
`electric impedance of the heating element measured by the occupant
`detection circuit.”
`Patent Owner also contends that “configured to” should be interpreted
`similarly as the “configured to” phrase in the previously recited “occupant
`detection circuit.” PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:22–26; 6:36–39;
`Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 72–73). For the reasons discussed above for the “occupant
`detection circuit,” we adopt Patent Owner’s interpretation for “configured
`to,” and thus, interpret “isolation circuit configured to prevent the heating
`circuit from influencing the occupant detection circuit” to mean an “isolation
`circuit specifically designed to prevent the heating circuit from influencing
`the occupant detection circuit.” See PO Resp. 24.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`III. CHALLENGE BASED ON KINCAID AND NIX
`Petitioner contends that, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims 1–8 would
`have been rendered obvious by Kincaid combined with Nix, with citations to
`the references and declarant testimony. Pet. 2, 9, 52–87. Patent Owner
`responds to the challenges with citations to the references, its declarant
`testimony, and other record evidence. PO Resp. 1–28, 45–59; PO Sur-Reply
`3–7.
`
`To prevail in its challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), Petitioner must
`prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
`in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on
`the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and
`content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject
`matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and
`(4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1996).
`For the challenge based on Kincaid and Nix, the parties’ disputes are
`related to the differences between independent claims 1, 4, and 8 and the
`prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in the art. The parties do not present
`arguments regarding objective evidence of nonobviousness and do not direct
`us to any objective evidence of nonobviousness. Pet. 87 (“Petitioner is
`unaware of any objective evidence supporting a finding of non-
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`obviousness.”); PO Resp. passim.; Tr. 48:11–13 (Patent Owner’s counsel
`agreeing that no objective evidence of nonobviousness was presented in the
`record).
`After reviewing the complete record, we conclude that Petitioner has
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Kincaid combined with Nix
`teach or suggest each limitation of claims 1–8; that a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would have had a reason to combine Kincaid with Nix; and that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation
`of success in combining the asserted references.
`A. Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`1. Nix (Ex. 1006)
`Nix provides a “system, apparatus, and method . . . for controlling
`equipment operable by a plurality of operators.” Ex. 1006 Abstract. Figure
`1 of Nix is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 shows a system “as applied to a seated equipment operator of
`a vehicle.” Id. ¶¶ 21, 30. The system includes signal generator 108,
`seat 104, operator 100 in seat 104, and equipment 120. Id. ¶¶ 12, 30. A
`signal from signal generator 108 is coupled capacitively with operator 100
`via conductive surface 106 in seat 104, and the signal passes through
`path 102 to element 124 of equipment 120. Id. ¶¶ 12, 30, 31. Signal
`detector 116 detects if a signal consistent with one from signal generator 108
`is at element 124 to control a function of equipment 120. Id. ¶¶ 12, 31, 33,
`35, 36, 44.
`In another example, a “heated seat matt can be used for coupling the
`signal with the operator.” Id. ¶ 50. Figure 5 of Nix is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 5 shows “an example of a signal coupled with a seat heating
`matt.” Id. ¶ 25. “[S]eat heating matt 510 includes resistive heating element
`512 wired to seat control module 500.” Id. ¶ 51. Switches 502, 508 of seat
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`control module 500 connect seat heating matt 510 to battery 504 and ground
`506, respectively. Id.
`According to Nix, a heated seat matt has low resistance and “may
`make it difficult to couple a sufficiently strong signal into the operator” and
`thus, can cause “relatively high currents” that may result in “undesirable
`losses,” may require expensive parts in signal generator 108, and “may cause
`electromagnetic interference problems with other electronic equipment.” Id.
`Nix states that “[i]n order to use the seat heating matt 510 to couple the
`signal from a signal generator 518 into the operator, a common mode
`rejection choke 514 is connected in series with the seat heating matt 510”
`and that “[u]sing the common mode rejection choke 514[,] the entire seat
`heating matt’s potential can alternate relative to vehicle ground 506, while
`keeping the resulting alternating current low due to the relatively high
`impedance of the common mode rejection choke 514 at the operating
`frequency.” Id. ¶ 51.
`Nix also states that the “signal generator 518 is connected to the seat
`heating matt 510 through a capacitor 516 so that the signal generator 518 is
`not affected by the seat heating being on or off, and switches 502 and 508
`being closed or open.” Id. ¶ 52.
`2. Kincaid (Ex. 1007)
`Kincaid relates to a “seat assembly comprising a seat heating element
`and an occupant detection circuit, wherein the occupant detection circuit is
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`electrically isolated from the seat heating circuit during occupant sensing.”
`Ex. 1007 ¶ 2. Figure 3 of Kincaid is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is a “block diagram of an occupant detection/seat heating system.”
`Id. ¶ 11. “A seat assembly includes a seat cushion, a heating element, a
`heating circuit, a[n] occupant sensing circuit, and an isolation circuit.” Id.
`Abstract, claim 1.
`“The seat cushion has a seating surface, [and] the heating element is
`adjacent the seating surface and is formed of electrically conductive
`material.” Id. Abstract; see also id. claim 1. Kincaid states that its Figure 1
`“shows seat assembly 10 in a vehicle passenger compartment having seat
`cushion 12 providing seat surface 24 for supporting an occupant,” that
`“[a]djacent seating surface 24 is mat 16 having heating element 14 attached
`to mat 16,” and that the “heating element can be made of any electrically
`conductive material capable of surviving the stress and strain of being
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`adjacent a seating surface and providing sufficient resistance to electrical
`current to generate a quantity of heat effective to warm the seating surface.”
`Id. ¶ 13. “The heating circuit is coupled to the heating element for supplying
`electrical current to the heating element for generating heat.” Id. Abstract;
`see also id. claim 1. Kincaid describes that “[d]uring the heating mode, the
`heating circuit applies a heating voltage, a source of heating current, to the
`heating element by closing a heater switch comprising a first heater switch
`44 and second heater switch 54.” Id. ¶ 14.
`The occupant sensing circuit is also coupled to the heating element for
`sensing the presence of an occupant near the heating element. Id. Abstract;
`see also id. claim 1. The isolation circuit is interposed between the heating
`circuit and the heating element for isolating the heating circuit from the
`occupant sensing circuit. Id. Abstract; see also id. claim 1. Kincaid states
`that “the occupant detection circuit is electrically isolated from the seat
`heating circuit during occupant sensing,” “the isolation circuit is effective
`for isolating the heating circuit from the occupant sensing circuit,” “the
`heating circuit will be suitably isolated from the occupant sensing circuit,”
`and the “[i]solation of the open-switch impedance is provided for by
`isolation circuit 68 as shown in FIG. 3”). Id. ¶¶ 2, 6, 18.
`B. Differences Between the Claimed Subject Matter and the Prior Art
`Petitioner contends that “Kincaid discloses the majority of the
`limitations of claims 1–8 but does not explicitly disclose the use of a
`common mode choke in the isolation circuit.” Pet. 83; see also id. 53–60
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–106; Ex. 1007 Abstract, ¶¶ 11, Fig. 3, claim 1).
`Petitioner provides for comparison of Figure 3 of the ’194 patent with Figure
`3 of Kincaid, which we reproduce below.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`
`Id. at 56; see also id. at 84 (comparing Figs. 1–4 of Kincaid with Figs. 1–4
`of the ’194 patent).
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`1. Independent Claim 1
`Petitioner argues that Kincaid teaches the preamble “occupant
`detection system.” Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–98; Ex. 1007, Abstract,
`¶ 11). We find that Kincaid states that “FIG. 3 is a block diagram of an
`occupant detection/seat heating system.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 11. We also find that
`Kincaid teaches that the “occupant sensing circuit is also coupled to the
`heating element for sensing the presence of an occupant near the heating
`element.” Id., Abstract. Thus, we find that Kincaid teaches an “occupant
`detection system.”
`Petitioner also argues that Kincaid teaches “a seat assembly
`comprising a seat cushion having a seating surface.” Pet. 53–54 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–98; Ex. 1007, claim 1). We find that Kincaid’s claim 1
`includes the recitation “a seat assembly, comprising: a seat cushion having a
`seating surface.” Ex. 1007, claim 1. We also find that Kincaid describes a
`“seat assembly including a seat cushion,” that the “seat cushion has a seating
`surface,” and that “FIG. 1 shows seat assembly 10 in a vehicle passenger
`compartment having seat cushion 12 providing seat surface 24 for
`supporting an occupant.” Id. at Abstract, ¶ 13. We further credit
`Petitioner’s declarant testimony regarding the seat assembly of claim 1
`because the testimony finds support in Kincaid. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–98. We,
`thus, find that Kincaid teaches “a seat assembly comprising a seat cushion
`having a seating surface,” as recited by claim 1.
`Petitioner contends that Kincaid teaches “a heating element adjacent
`the seating surface, said heating element formed of electrically conductive
`mate
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
